5 ms·

> I don't really buy the perpetual “us vs them” mentality I’m presented with, and maybe there is a more holistic approach to collaborating with their sentiment

> I don't really buy the perpetual “us vs them” mentality I’m presented with, and maybe there is a more holistic approach to collaborating with their sentiment if there was more communication I think it's "people who write them $100,000 checks versus people who don't". There is no true collaboration when one side of the argument is shoveling piles of money in to their lap and then we are expected to encourage them to see our side.

yieldcrv 3y ago
reiterating: I want to see their side. I've lobbied in a variety of countries and stateside political entities successfully, and in the process I realized everyone thinks their cause is just. My ability to bridge consensus is more novel than the ideologies that have gravitated to the far extremes of their respective parties and will never gain consensus. What we have in common is that we all appreciate the influence that surpasses the popular vote, in places we could never be registered to vote in to begin with. So my causes have been enacted in some places, and people doing the same thing believe the same thing about their causes. Nobody sees themselves as the "shadowy foreign influence" in the other country's political process, but sure, the Michael Moore documentary 10 years too late will present it that way. In this case, I'd like to know what the proponents believe about this particular cause to even do. What are they trying to accomplish beyond "unaccountable secret government court to piss off technologists that have a hobby of paying attention to it"?
- pessimizer 3y ago
  > secret government court to piss off technologists Pretty sure nobody cares about what "technologists" think about it. Technologists will do what they're told, for pay. "Unaccountable secret government" is an obvious aim in itself, for people who think (or know) that they will be insiders.
- costco 3y ago
  Here's a talk that may interest you with former Director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center Bill Evanina and Special Agent Charles McGonigal (yes, that one). https://youtu.be/aZdJ6aDsB08?t=5712 https://youtu.be/aZdJ6aDsB08?t=5712 They believe these powers are critical for counterintelligence and foreign influence investigations. I think that's not true, but I'm pretty sure they actually believe it.
- roenxi 3y ago
  > What are they trying to accomplish beyond "unaccountable secret government court to piss off technologists that have a hobby of paying attention to it"? We can make a solid guess. They are probably thinking "we will be given lots of money to spy on people" and "this is a low risk source of profits, governments generally don't roll back authoritarian policies". These things are usually alliances of convenience between people who make huge amounts of money off a policy and people who then get to spy on their ex-girlfriend and get a real high out of that sort of power. Most of the initial oomph comes from people with money.
pessimizer 3y ago
I'm pretty sure that when sneaking in laws like this, the people who write $100K checks don't even want explicit public support for their positions. Lobbying for public support means intentionally publicizing the thing you're trying to sneakily do. Maybe you convert one person to your side, but in order to do that, you've told five people what you're going to do. For some opinions, you can't find anyone who publicly holds them who isn't being paid in some way. The best you can do is find a thinktank that is also being paid to support the idea, but which is also being paid to write the apologia that others will repeat parts of when confronted. If you hear politicians repeating the same phrases, google them and you might find the original. A supportive WaPo/NYT oped will also be written by the thinktank (often signed by a congressperson or celebrity), but if they can't quid-pro-quo into the editorial pages of one of those two, they'll still have a half-dozen on Politico/The Hill that will lead you to a paper.
nceqs3 3y ago
> people who write them $100,000 checks Which law enforcement agency is writing $100k checks? There are no commercial interests in Section 702. In fact, if any, they would be against 702 (as Verizon doesn't like having to deal with it).
- TaylorAlexander 3y ago
  Law enforcement are a means to an end. They don't lobby for themselves, but other powerful interests lobby on law enforcement's behalf. Said more directly - powerful people want more law enforcement against the common people and they will lobby for it.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > They don't lobby for themselves Law enforcement (both agencies and law enforcement personnel collectively separately from any agency) absolute do lobby legislators directly, and the public, for themselves.
    - TaylorAlexander 3y ago
      Oh, I mean yes they do. But also more powerful groups lobby for law enforcement as well because the security state is good for big business.
      - GTP 3y ago
        It really depends on the kind of business, because one could also argue that surveillance is an additional cost to companies that are forced to help with it by intercepting their customers. Unless those same companies get paid by the government to do so, I'm not a USA citizen so I don't know exactly the situation there.
  - nceqs3 3y ago
    Common people generally don't like terrorism.
- 3y ago

yieldcrv 3y ago

reiterating: I want to see their side. I've lobbied in a variety of countries and stateside political entities successfully, and in the process I realized everyone thinks their cause is just. My ability to bridge consensus is more novel than the ideologies that have gravitated to the far extremes of their respective parties and will never gain consensus. What we have in common is that we all appreciate the influence that surpasses the popular vote, in places we could never be registered to vote in to begin with. So my causes have been enacted in some places, and people doing the same thing believe the same thing about their causes. Nobody sees themselves as the "shadowy foreign influence" in the other country's political process, but sure, the Michael Moore documentary 10 years too late will present it that way. In this case, I'd like to know what the proponents believe about this particular cause to even do. What are they trying to accomplish beyond "unaccountable secret government court to piss off technologists that have a hobby of paying attention to it"?

pessimizer 3y ago
> secret government court to piss off technologists Pretty sure nobody cares about what "technologists" think about it. Technologists will do what they're told, for pay. "Unaccountable secret government" is an obvious aim in itself, for people who think (or know) that they will be insiders.
costco 3y ago
Here's a talk that may interest you with former Director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center Bill Evanina and Special Agent Charles McGonigal (yes, that one). https://youtu.be/aZdJ6aDsB08?t=5712 https://youtu.be/aZdJ6aDsB08?t=5712 They believe these powers are critical for counterintelligence and foreign influence investigations. I think that's not true, but I'm pretty sure they actually believe it.
roenxi 3y ago
> What are they trying to accomplish beyond "unaccountable secret government court to piss off technologists that have a hobby of paying attention to it"? We can make a solid guess. They are probably thinking "we will be given lots of money to spy on people" and "this is a low risk source of profits, governments generally don't roll back authoritarian policies". These things are usually alliances of convenience between people who make huge amounts of money off a policy and people who then get to spy on their ex-girlfriend and get a real high out of that sort of power. Most of the initial oomph comes from people with money.

pessimizer 3y ago

I'm pretty sure that when sneaking in laws like this, the people who write $100K checks don't even want explicit public support for their positions. Lobbying for public support means intentionally publicizing the thing you're trying to sneakily do. Maybe you convert one person to your side, but in order to do that, you've told five people what you're going to do. For some opinions, you can't find anyone who publicly holds them who isn't being paid in some way. The best you can do is find a thinktank that is also being paid to support the idea, but which is also being paid to write the apologia that others will repeat parts of when confronted. If you hear politicians repeating the same phrases, google them and you might find the original. A supportive WaPo/NYT oped will also be written by the thinktank (often signed by a congressperson or celebrity), but if they can't quid-pro-quo into the editorial pages of one of those two, they'll still have a half-dozen on Politico/The Hill that will lead you to a paper.

nceqs3 3y ago

> people who write them $100,000 checks Which law enforcement agency is writing $100k checks? There are no commercial interests in Section 702. In fact, if any, they would be against 702 (as Verizon doesn't like having to deal with it).

TaylorAlexander 3y ago
Law enforcement are a means to an end. They don't lobby for themselves, but other powerful interests lobby on law enforcement's behalf. Said more directly - powerful people want more law enforcement against the common people and they will lobby for it.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > They don't lobby for themselves Law enforcement (both agencies and law enforcement personnel collectively separately from any agency) absolute do lobby legislators directly, and the public, for themselves.
  - TaylorAlexander 3y ago
    Oh, I mean yes they do. But also more powerful groups lobby for law enforcement as well because the security state is good for big business.
    - GTP 3y ago
      It really depends on the kind of business, because one could also argue that surveillance is an additional cost to companies that are forced to help with it by intercepting their customers. Unless those same companies get paid by the government to do so, I'm not a USA citizen so I don't know exactly the situation there.
- nceqs3 3y ago
  Common people generally don't like terrorism.
3y ago